Not allowing the Amira and standard Alexa is straight up moronic. The upscaled 4K in it thrashes the pants of plenty of native 4K sensors in terms of look and detail. I've had them side by side plenty of times.
Looking through the list and numbers and so on, the word that comes to mind is "arbitrary"
Also demanding Alexa 65 with Arriraw as the only acceptable Arri format when nearly every feature film is shot on Arri... and plenty on Alexa ProRes... it seems more like a political alliance with other manufacturers against Arri dominance than much else.
Which is silly, they're dominant because their product is the best. Thought the Varicam is arguablly as good if it gets the uptake.

Oh I forgot to say, the codec gap was the first thing I asked the Canon rep at a trade show, and he said they were planning to introduce XF-AVC in a future update, but he had no details.
Lack of a 4:2:2 10-bit option is annoying
Well I used the C100 mk i for three years with no issues. I think it makes great looking footage and is easy to use.
I have an XC10 but I'd pick the C100 mk ii over it by a long shot TBH.
All depends on your priorities.

I'm gonna order one, and before you stone me death let me explain
I make my living on video gigs, and we have used two C100s for the past three years for most of them. There were only a few occasions where I wanted more than 8-bit, and about 30% of the time I wish I had more data than the brilliantly implemented AVCHD 24mbps. On paper they're shit. In reality they're brilliant workhorses.
When I did want more data, a little Ninja 2 with a locking HDMI cable provided more than enough wiggle room using DNxHD 220X, without sacrificing any camcorder conveninece. It looked really good, but what was amazing is well the AVCHD stood up to it with a tenth of the data.
What did I really miss on shoots? frame rates up to 100fps. If we really needed this we usually ended up hiring an Arri Amira for the whole job instead of doing things piecemeal. Anything higher than 100fps I took from Amira usually ended sped up in an edit so 100fps would have been fine. So 100 fps is what I'd like.
We also have a Red and don't use it much because of the weight and neediness of all the kit that goes with it. It takes a lot more post. It's been used as a B-Cam to an Amira on some shoots and in this situation the far superior colour on the Amira made the Red look poor so it's not really useful for my work.
During this time I've had a lot of Sony cameras and always sold them after a brief honeymoon period. Why?
Terrible colour. I can't stand it. Yeah high speeds are great and so are high bitrates, but the footage always looked kinda anaemic and dead rendering the slow-mo and bitrates meaningless to me. Even in that bloom review I knew he was shooting himself with a Sony because he was MagentaMan. It's so slow to fix the colour, it's really annoying and takes the fun out of the post. Also they're always clunky to use in terms of menus and often feel cheaply made and ergonmically questionable.
So the C200 comes along. The whole "either have really compressed or stupidly massive raw" is a bit of a niggle, but they may add another bitrate option as they did with other cameras like the XC10.
In short for users making use of these the way I do it'll be ideal. I can use all the lenses, all the batteries, it'll cut well with the C100s, I get my 100fps and I can do extra special shots for post and so on in raw. I don't have to think too much about adaptors, batteries, dodgy colour and so on, just hand them the money and I can thrash the thing for five years.
in other words THEY HAVE ME OVER A BARRELL but they're good at what they do...

Seems like it's a sort of "thought leader" product, in that they're heading for holographic and so on.
They have a bit of a market issue in that most Red owners are very protective of the notion of "professionalism" so they can't really make this into a "proper" cinema camera.
So for that reason I think you're right, it won't become a proper camera, as it were.
One interesting aspect of it is the inlusion of Red's proprietary formats. This sort of thing can backfire if the formats aren't open enough.
Sony were obsessed with controlling media, formats and so on and their history is littered with expensive failed experiments: ATRAC3 players (instead of MP3), UMD, Sony Memeory Stick, and so on... even the new wireless headphones I have include some proprietary codec support that only works with Sony phones, though at least that's not all they do.
So it's kinda interesting to watch, but if holographic does take off, the format with the low-fee or totally open license will win!
I also question the ability of any current battery to run this stuff for a long time.

Yeah... I'm gonna be offloading the Red cos it doesn't get enough use. If I need something like that I'll just hire in future.
It's too big heavy and clumsy to be fun.
I miss when I started out hacking the 550D

We got the XC10 for this... but no nuts.
the fuzzy-motion noise reduction, not great low-light, all kinds of little quirks and issues... they do need a dedicated b-cam, but they're too afraid of losing sale.
A litlle half-size C50 with C100 sensor and so on would do it
Of course you'd want internal stabilisation, and they'll never give it to us due to wanting to flog stabilised lenses.

But yeah, back on topic!
I'm with a few of the others here. I think if you use a LUT at 100% right over your work it tends to be a bit cartoonish or derivative.
I've bought most LUT packs going, and I'll put them on to inspire an idea, or at a lower percentage over a whole piece to tie it together a bit.
Also I think it's always good to start by neutralising the footage (unless you're shooting baked in) so you're working from a middle ground outwards.